The first is that overemphasizing scores is a mistake.Methods of teaching, pedagogy, have been on my mind a lot recently. After I questioned the limits of the Praise Sandwich, the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, was unconvinced.
The second is that teacher evaluation systems — now under development in most states — will be of little use unless they include mechanisms for showing teachers who receive average ratings how to become great, or at least good, at what they do.
And finally, the country will not build a first-rate teacher corps solely by threatening to fire people who are less than perfect early in their careers.
The Sandwich Theory has become social convention because it works. It works because most human beings—not just law students—are fragile; by sandwiching constructive criticism between slices of praise, the teacher sends the message that the criticism is not personal.After a prolonged discussion with a commenter named "Justin" to Bennett's post, two points became abundantly clear: students want to be taught effectively, but effectively from their perspective. In other words, it's not that they want empty praise in lieu of meaningful instruction, but they still want to be praised even if it comes at the expense of meaningful instruction.And yes, criminal-defense lawyers should be tougher than that. But the Sandwich Theory is a teaching tool—perhaps an effective one—and if you want to teach people you’ll use whatever tools come to hand.
While denying that there was any value to empty praise, it didn't diminish the desire for praise at all. I saw his position as "unprincipled," as he wanted it both ways but refused to admit that was what he sought. Thousands of words were murdered in explaining why this wasn't so, each paragraph sinking the argument deeper into a hole of no return.
In Atlanta, the teachers found themselves in a similar conundrum. Their worth, and consequently their jobs, are gauged solely by test outcomes. There are three ways to achieve good test outcomes. One is to teach to the test. Two is to fix the results. Three is to be an excellent teacher. Of these options, the third is by far the hardest.
But as the second and third lessons offered by Staples suggests, teachers, particularly young ones, are being set up for failure. Bennett informs me that the Praise Sandwich is "perhaps an effective tool" as it has become a social convention. While it's certainly true that it has been widely embraced as a teaching tool, is that because students like it, students much prefer being praised when being taught?
The argument that it's effective is largely based on the fact that it doesn't scare away those who do poorly in the beginning, who need positive reinforcement to persist in the educational process. This goes to the "novice" versus "expert" aspect of the Praise Sandwich, which I suspect Bennett and Justin misunderstood.
They argued that third year law students aren't "experts," and thus fell in the category for whom the Praise Sandwich was critical. I don't think that's what is meant by "experts," and it's a facile rationale for perpetuating and enabling people who should be determined to achieve mastery of their subject to instead hide behind the third-grader within them. What is missed is that the Praise Sandwich, by definition, requires praise to be given first and last, regardless of whether there is anything praiseworthy to say. Make it up. Do whatever you have to do to be encouraging. But praise. That is the tool: there must be praise.
I am similarly unpersuaded that it's necessarily a bad thing that people who lack the chops to excel shouldn't be scared away. Not everybody can grow up to be President, despite our popular belief to the contrary. Nor be a lawyer. Nor a teacher. This isn't a bad thing. What is a bad thing is to enable those who should have been weeded out to continue under the false security of praise and competence.
If you have a student in the Atlanta school system, are you more concerned about your child's teacher feeling good about himself or his ability to teach your child? Bear in mind that teachers, unlike lawyers, are not compelled to attend a three year, post-graduate, course of study directed solely to becoming a member of the legal profession. They are certainly no more experts than new lawyers, having not had those extra three years to gain greater "expertise."
And yet, no parent is more concerned with the teacher's self-esteem than the child's education. Nor should they be. But the parents will not have a first-rate teacher corps unless there is a mechanism to teach them how to be great. Will the Praise Sandwich accomplish that goal?
At some point, we need to stop enabling the child within to demand praise and reach a higher metacognitive level. No doubt, teachers, like law students, want to be told how well their doing. Perhaps it's effective for making them feel good about themselves and encouraging them to continue their pursuit. But when do they shift from the need for validation to the desire to achieve excellence? It is this desire that's meant be "expert."
The alternative, as happened in Atlanta, is that we continue to enjoy the social convention of tummy rubbing that so many crave and enjoy, and just cheat our way to success. Because no amount of tummy rubbing will make anyone a first-rate teacher. Or trial lawyer. Or anything else, for that matter.
What happened in Atlanta was the by-product of a widely embraced pedagogy. It failed and dozens of teachers and administrators were indicted for cheating. They better hope their lawyers weren't the products of the same pedagogy, or they're doomed.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/17/when-teachers-eat-their-own.aspx?ref=rss
No comments:
Post a Comment